Regenerating Woodlands: Tanzania's HASHI Project.

UNTIL RECENTLY, THE SHINYANGA REGION JUST SOUTH OF LAKE VICTORIA WAS nick-named the Desert of Tanzania. Its once-abundant woodland had been stripped away over decades, first to eradicate the
disease-carrying tsetse fly, then to create cropland and make space for a growing population (Monela et al. 2004:14). Now the acacia
and miombo trees are returning, courtesy of the HASHI project, a major restoration effort based on the traditional practice of restoring
vegetation in protected enclosures or ngitili.

The region-wide HASHI project, whose success was recognized
by the UN Development Programme with an Equator
Initiative prize in 2002, is run and mainly funded by the
Tanzanian government. But its striking success stems from the
rich ecological knowledge and strong traditional institutions of
the agro-pastoralist Sukuma people who live in the region.

By 2004, 18 years into the project, at least 350,000 hectares
of ngitili (the Sukuma term for enclosures) had been restored or
created in 833 villages, encompassing a population of 2.8 million
(Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1; Barrow 2005b). Benefits of the
restoration include higher household incomes, better diets, and
greater livelihood security for families in the region. Nature has
benefited too, with a big increase in tree, shrub, grass, and herb
varieties, as well as bird and mammal species (Monela et al
2004:3-4). Table 1 summarizes these wide-ranging benefits. It is
drawn from an in-depth study of HASHI’s impacts on local
livelihoods commissioned by the Tanzanian government and the
World Conservation Union (IUCN).

People, Trees, and Livelihoods: A Short History of the HASHI Project

Shinyanga is one of Tanzania’s poorest regions, its low hills and
plains characterized by long dry summers with only 700 mm of
rainfall a year on average. As its woods were cleared from the 1920s
onward, land and soil became over-used and degraded, causing a
sharp decline in the natural goods on which the Sukuma people had
depended for centuries.Women spent more time collecting formerly
plentiful fuel wood; grasses to feed livestock became scarcer, as did
traditionally harvested wild fruit and medicinal plants.

The region’s ecological problems were compounded by a
booming human population and by the Sukuma’s extensive
land-use needs. Nine in ten of Shinyanga’s households live by
small-scale farming, with families dependent on cropland and
livestock pasture for both subsistence farming and cash crops
such as cotton, tobacco, and rice (Monela et al. 2004:21-22).
Since cattle are highly valued as a liquid asset, many households
also kept livestock herds too large for their land to sustain, and
burning of woodland to create pasture was common practice.

By the 1970s Shinyanga was under severe ecological strain,
its people feeling the consequences in the form of falling incomes
and lost livelihoods (Monela et al. 2004:12-13). Early attempts at
reforestation launched by Tanzania’s government, the World
Bank, and other agencies largely failed to stem the loss of indigenous
woodland and its impact on communities. Top-down,
bureaucratic management of projects meant that villagers had
little involvement or stake in the success of these efforts. During
the 1970s, the socialist government of President Julius Nyerere
also adopted laws that increased communal ownership of rural land and encouraged people to live in discrete
villages where services could be better provided—a
process called “villagization.” Individual ngitili
enclosures, which many villagers had carefully
sustained for food, fodder, fuelwood, and
medicines, were no longer encouraged. Indeed,
many ngitili were destroyed during the period, as
the villagization process undermined traditional
institutions and practices (Monela et al. 2004:102).

In 1986, Tanzania’s government shifted
tactics dramatically and launched the peoplecentered,
community-based Shinyanga Soil
Conservation Programme, known simply as
HASHI (from the Swahili “Hifadhi Ardhi
Shinyanga”). The impetus came from President
Nyerere himself, who declared Shinyanga the
“Desert of Tanzania” after touring the region. By
1987, HASHI was operational and by 1989 it had
attracted additional, long-term support from the
Norwegian Development Assistance Agency.

The Revival of Ngitili

The project’s innovative efforts to improve rural livelihoods are
based on reviving “ngitili,” an indigenous natural resource
management system (Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1).
Traditionally, ngitili were used to provide forage for livestock—
especially oxen—at the end of the dry season when villagers
plough their land. Vegetation and trees are nurtured on fallow
lands during the wet season so that livestock fodder supplies are
available for dry months.

There are two types of ngitili: enclosures owned by individuals
or families, and communal enclosures owned and managed
in common. Both were originally developed by the Sukuma in
response to acute animal feed shortages caused by droughts, the
loss of grazing land to crops, and declining land productivity
(Barrow and Mlenge 2003:6).

The HASHI project’s approach to ngitili revival was to
work with local people, first to identify areas requiring urgent
land restoration, and then to restore them according to customary
practice. Field officers, employed by the Division of Forestry
and Beekeeping in the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Tourism, worked closely with both district government staff and
village government authorities—the lowest accountable bodies
in Tanzania’s government (Barrow 2005b).

Technical guidance and information was also provided by
the Nairobi-based International Center for Research in Agro-
Forestry (ICRAF), which had researched ngitili restoration.
ICRAF studies documented appropriate vegetation and
management practices, and noted the important role played by
traditional knowledge and local institutions in successful land
management (Barrow 2005e).

In many villages, HASHI field officers used residual natural
seed and root stock to restore ngitili enclosures. In others, active
tree planting (first of exotic species, later of the indigenous tree
species preferred by local people) was carried out, especially
around homesteads. Some of the restored ngitili dated back to
pre-villagization days. Others were newly created by farmers and
villages. In addition to restoring ngitili, villagers were encouraged
to plant trees around homesteads (particularly fruit and
shade trees), field boundaries, and farm perimeters. This helped
improve soil fertility and provide firewood, and had the side
benefit of helping farmers to stake out and formalize their land
rights within villages (Barrow 2005c).

A range of tools were used to educate and empower
villagers. These included video, theater, newsletters, and
workshops to demonstrate firsthand the links between soil
conservation, forest restoration, and livelihood security.
Participatory rural appraisal methods helped villagers to identify
local natural resource problems and agree on solutions (Kaale et
al. 2003:13-14). Farmers and villagers received training in how
to get the most out of their ngitili. For example, they learned
which indigenous species were best suited to enrich farms soils or
create dense boundary plantings.

Armed with this powerful combination of traditional and
scientific knowledge, villages across Shinyanga gradually revitalized
the institution of ngitili and broadened its use from simple
soil and fodder conservation to production of a wide range of
woodland goods and services. Products such as timber, fodder,
fuelwood, medicinal herbs, wild fruits, honey, and edible insects
enhanced livelihoods and provided a vital safety net during dry
seasons and droughts (Barrow and Mlenge 2003:1).

In the early years, restoration efforts proceeded gradually
as cautious farmers and communities assessed the benefits and
rights which ngitili regeneration produced. By the early 1990s,
with the project’s effectiveness beyond doubt, restoration efforts
spread rapidly through the region. In 1986, about 600 hectares of documented ngitili enclosures existed in Shinyanga. A
survey of 172 sample villages in the late 1990s revealed 18,607
ngitili (284 communal, the rest owned by households) covering
roughly 78,122 hectares (Kaale et al. 2003:8, Barrow and
Mlenge 2004:1). Extrapolating from these figures, project
managers estimate that more than 350,000 hectares of land in
Shinyanga were in use as ngitili, with nine in ten inhabitants of
Shinyanga’s 833 villages enjoying access to ngitili goods and
services (Barrow 2005b).

Making It Work: Traditional and Local Institutions

HASHI’s empowering approach was unusual among 1980s
rural development programs, but critical to its success.
Promoting ngitili as the vehicle for land restoration increased
local people’s ownership over natural
resources and their capacity and will to
manage them. Likewise, allowing traditional
Sukuma institutions and village
governments to oversee restoration efforts
helped to ensure their region-wide success.
While elected village governments
officially manage communal ngitili, and
also decide disputes regarding individually
owned ngitili, in practice traditional institutions
have played an equally important role
in most villages (Kaale et al. 2003:14-16;
Monela et al. 2004:98).

For example, while each village sets its
own rules on ngitili restoration and
management, most use traditional community
guards known as Sungusungu and
community assemblies known as Dagashida
to enforce them. The Dagashida is led by
the Council of Elders which decides what
sanctions to impose on individuals caught
breaking ngitili management rules, for
example by grazing livestock on land set
aside for regeneration (Monela et al.
2004:98-99).

HASHI field officers have worked to
build the capacity and effectiveness of both
official and traditional governance institutions.
Elected village governments, for
example, are increasingly using their powers to approve by-laws that legally enshrine the conservation of local
ngitili. Such by-laws, once ratified at the district level, are recognized
as legitimate by the national government (Barrow and
Mlenge 2003:9, Barrow 2005c).

A 2003 study funded by the World Conservation Union
concluded that this twin-track approach had paid off.
“Traditional groupings, such as Dagashida and Sungusungu
have complemented, rather than conflicted with village government.
The blending of the traditional and modern has clearly
been an important factor in the success of the restoration”
(Kaale et al. 2003:21).

Despite popular support, however, decisions over where to
situate ngitili and what rules should govern them are not always
democratic. While many communities establish communal
enclosures through the village assembly—in which every registered
adult can vote—others are chosen arbitrarily by village
governments without public consultation (Monela et al. 2004:8).
“There is no single way of establishing ngitili and some are more
democratic than others,” explains Professor Gerald Monela of
the Department of Forest Economics at Tanzania’s Sokoine
University of Agriculture. In general, he says, devolution of
decision-making to village institutions has clearly increased local
responsibility for natural resource management and promoted
the success of ngitili conservation in Shinyanga (Monela 2005).

This success has not been lost on Tanzania’s other regions, two
of which, Mwanza and Tabora, are now adapting and replicating
HASHI’s empowerment methods (Barrow and Mlenge 2004:2).

Paying Dividends to People

Of the more than 350,000 hectares of land now occupied by
restored or newly established ngitili, roughly half is owned by
groups and half by individuals. Communal enclosures average
164 hectares in size, while individual plots average 2.3 hectares
(Kaale et al. 2003:9; Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1).

While the impressive speed of ngitili-based reforestation
has been apparent for several years, its impact on people’s livelihoods
and income has only recently been quantified. A major
study by a ten-person task force, launched by the Tanzanian
government and IUCN in 2004 and directed by Prof. Monela,
combined detailed field research among 240 households in 12
villages with market surveys and other data analysis to quantify
the HASHI project’s benefits (Monela 2005).

The task force estimated the cash value of benefits from
ngitili in Shinyanga at US$14 per person per month—significantly
higher than the average monthly spending per person in
rural Tanzania, of US$8.50 (Monela et al 2004:6). Of the 16
natural products commonly harvested from ngitili, fuelwood,
timber, and medicinal plants were found to be of greatest
economic value to households. Other valuable outputs included
fodder, thatch-grass for roofing, and wild foods such as bush
meat, fruit, vegetables, and honey (Monela et al. 2004:54-56).
(See Table 2.)

In surveyed villages, up to 64 percent of households reported
that they were better off due to the benefits derived from ngitili.
The task force, headed by Professor Monela, concluded that
ngitili restoration “demonstrates the importance of tree-based
natural resources to the economies of local people” and offers “a
significant income source to supplement agriculture to diversify
livelihoods in Shinyanga region” (Monela et al. 2004:7,16).

The study also documented the ripple effect of these
economic benefits in people’s lives. Maintaining ngitili has
enabled some villagers—mainly through sales of timber and
other wood products—to pay school fees, purchase new farm
equipment, and hire agricultural labor. Income generated by
communal ngitili has been used to build classrooms, village
offices, and healthcare centers. One farmer, ‘Jim’ of Seseko
village, reported how he had been able to send his son to
secondary school and his daughter to university in Dar es
Salaam. “My ngitili assists me …I fatten my cattle there and
therefore they fetch a good price. Then I use the money to
educate my children” (Monela et al. 2004:91).

The new abundance of fruits, vegetables, and edible insects
has also improved local health, while easy access to thatched
grass has improved housing. Raised water tables due to soil
conservation have increased water supplies within villages.

The study also confirms that villagers, particularly
women, are saving considerable time by no longer having to
walk long distances for fuelwood, fodder, and thatch.
(See Table 1.) This frees men and women to concentrate on
other income-generating activities while also fostering
improved child care and school attendance (Monela et al
2004:108). “I now only spend 20 minutes collecting fuel wood.
In the past I spent 2-4 hours,” reported one Sukuma woman
who harvests branches from the family ngitili (Barrow and
Mlenge 2004:2).

According to Edmund Barrow, Coordinator of Forest and
Dryland Conservation and Social Policy at IUCN’s Eastern
Africa office, the task force findings “demonstrate that natural
resource assets are significantly more important in terms of
livelihood security and economic benefits than is generally
assumed.” There are useful lessons to be drawn, he argues,
both by Tanzania’s government and other comparable
countries. “At a time when conservation is increasingly being
asked to justify itself in the context of the Millennium
Development Goals, the HASHI experience offers detailed
insights into the reasons for considering biodiversity conservation
as a key component of livelihood security and poverty
reduction” (Barrow 2005b; Barrow and Mlenge 2004:1).

The Conservation Dividend

Not only are the restored woodlands important economic assets
but, as Table 1 highlights, they are also fostering richer habitats
and the recovery of a variety of species. The task force found
152 species of trees, shrubs, and climbers in restored ngitili,
where recently scrubby wasteland had stood. Small- and
medium-sized mammals such as hyenas, wild pigs, deer, hare,
and rabbits are also returning, and the task force recorded
145 bird species that had become locally rare or extinct
(Monela et al. 2004:3-5).

The returning wildlife has also created problems, with some
villages suffering considerable crop damage. Growing hyena
populations, for example, are taking a toll on livestock. However,
the costs of wildlife damage, which average US$63 per family per
year, are greatly outweighed by the economic gains from ngitili
in most villages (Monela et al. 2004:58-61, 67; Barrow 2005c).

Unequal Distribution of Benefits

Not everyone is benefiting equally from
ngitili restoration, however. Land use
patterns in the region are strongly influenced
by Sukuma traditions, with women controlling
low-income crops while men control
higher-earning livestock and cash crops. The
task force found this culture persisting with
ngitili restoration, with married women
rarely owning individual ngitili or having a
meaningful say in their management
(Monela et al 2004: 92). On the other hand,
all women have access to communal ngitili, a
right and resource which has helped them
acquire essential household needs such as
fuelwood, thatch, and food, and to save time
on chores. “Women are better off as a result
of ngitili revival, despite patriarchal systems,
due to their increased access to forest
products,” argues Professor Monela, the task
force chairman (Monela 2005).

Better-off households are also capturing
a bigger slice of benefits from reforestation
measures than poorer families. The task force
reported that differences in land and cattle
ownership were the most obvious indicators
regarding the scale of benefits reaped, and
noted that well-off people were buying
additional land from poorer households, thus
exacerbating local inequity (Monela et al.
2004:92-93). At the other end of the scale,
the poorest households cannot afford individual
ngitili, although they are entitled to
harvest products from communal enclosures,
sometimes for a fee.

One impoverished woman, from Mwamnemha village,
explained her predicament to a task force researcher: “I do not
have a ngitili because I do not have money, nor cattle to allow me
to buy land. I therefore purchase some of my needs from ngitili.
If I want to purchase grass for thatching I have to pay 200
shillings [US$ 0.20] per bundle. If I want land for cultivation, I
have to rent a piece for 12,000 shillings per acre. I am sometimes
given these products free of charge, but this is very rare”
(Monela et al. 2004:92).

Despite such problems, there have also been improvements
for the poorest. The task force found that ngitili were
being “used as one of the strategies through which some
communities indirectly cushion the vulnerability of households
classified as poor…those of the elderly, widows, and households
with no assets.” Most communities surveyed included
families with no cattle as those in need of help, even if they had
some land. The task force reported that each village they
visited either lent oxen to plough the fields of cattle-less households,
or allowed these households free use of products from
communal ngitili. In the village of Seseko, poor households were required to reciprocate by feeding the neighbors who
plowed their fields (Monela et al. 2004:95).

Acknowledging the benefits gap between richer and poorer
households, the task force warned that additional strategies
would be required to prevent social conflicts from erupting and
to ensure the long-term sustainability of ngitili. In particular, its
report concludes, local institutions should make every effort to
“enable people to hold on to land resources so that they can
maintain ngitili and enjoy its products” (Monela et al. 2004:110).

WIGELEKEKO VILLAGE: A HASHI SUCCESS STORY

Wigelekeko village in the Maswa District of Shinyanga personifies the
success of ngitili-based conservation efforts. By the mid-1980s, overgrazing
and land clearance for cotton fields had resulted in dry-season
shortages of wood products, fodder, and water for the 408 households.

With HASHI guidance, the village set aside 157 hectares of degraded
land. To enhance regeneration, grazing and tree-cutting was banned in
the communal ngitilifor five years, and villagers grazed their cattle only
in individually owned ngitili. When the ban ended, the communal enclosure
was carpeted with thriving trees and shrubs.

The village government and HASHI field officers then devised a simple
management system including controlled collection of firewood through
tree pruning, and limited dry-season grazing. Farmers were allowed to
grow food crops in small patches, but with strict soil conservation
measures. Protection of the communal ngitili was carried out through
Sungusungu and communally agreed village by-laws.

In 1997 the villagers decided to expand the enclosure by 20 ha in order to
build a small reservoir to store water for domestic and livestock use. Each
household contributed US$4 to build the dam, which was completed in
1998. A year later, the reservoir was providing water continuously, with the
value of its domestic water supply estimated at US$26,500 a year. Water
for livestock contributes even more value—an estimated US$92,500 per
year for sustaining about 1900 cattle. In 2000 fishing was introduced in
the reservoir, further contributing to local livelihood security.

A Wigelekeko water users group now manages the dam and, with the
village assembly’s approval, sells excess water to outsiders. In 2001 such
sales raised US$250 for community development. To reduce demand on
the community ngitili, two-thirds of villagers have also planted trees on
their farms, averaging 100 saplings per hectare.

Source: Kaale et al. 2003:18

A Fragile Future?

The HASHI project is clearly a success story, drawing attention
far beyond Shinyanga’s borders. Yet several demographic and
land-use trends threaten the continued expansion of ngitili as
a cornerstone of natural resource management in Tanzania.
These include (Monela et al. 2004:103-4,107):

Scarcity of land and insecurity of tenure;

Rapidly growing human and livestock populations, which are
driving a surge in demand for resources from the still-recovering
landscape;

Damage to livestock and crops caused by growing wildlife
populations; in some areas, this threatens to outweigh the
benefits gained from ngitili;

Growing, unregulated sales of individually owned ngitili.

The government-commissioned task force identified
population increase as a particular concern, pointing out that so
far “there are not clear indications that the restoration [of ngitili]
is sustainable” (Monela et al. 2004:107). Shinyanga’s population
rose from 1.77 million in 1988 to 2.8 million in 2002, and continues
to grow by 2.9 percent a year (Monela et al. 2004: 21). As a
result, fathers are increasingly dividing their ngitili plots between
sons, reducing the size and productivity of the plots. Farmers in Maswa district, for example, reported in 2004 that the shrinking
size of their individually owned ngitili had forced them to graze
only the neediest animals during the critical dry season.

LEARNING FROM TANZANIA’S NGITILI REGENERATION

Modern and Traditional Institutions Can Be Compatible.
Traditional institutions can act as effective vehicles for reducing poverty
through environmental regeneration. In Shinyanga, these institutions
meshed successfully with the more modern institutions of the popularly
elected village councils. Both are necessary for the continued success of
ngitili restoration.

Local Knowledge Helps Decentralization Succeed. Devolving
responsibility for land management to local communities and institutions
is often more effective than imposing centralized, top-down
solutions. Local or indigenous knowledge of natural resources and traditional
institutions and practices can be an invaluable resource, lending
crucial site-specific information for management, and improving
community buy-in and compliance with management rules. Only when
the HASHI project embraced a more participatory and empowering strategy
did ngitilirestoration begin to spread quickly.

Restored Ecosystems Generate Substantial Benefits. Regenerating
local ecosystems can deliver significant improvements in livelihood
security to rural families dependent on natural resources. ngitilibenefits,
both subsistence products and cash income, have yielded an increase in
family assets and nutrition, as well as generating income for public
benefits such as classrooms and health clinics. In this way ngitili
restoration has contributed directly to achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals, improving household incomes, education, and
health, while restoring biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.

Inequitable Distribution of Benefits Hurts the Poor. Inequitable
power relations between men and women and rich and poor can slant the
benefits of ngitili restoration away from those who most need them.
Without active intervention, the greater productivity that ngitilirestoration
brings will benefit those with more land and assets such as
livestock, simply perpetuating existing inequities and wasting some of
the potential of ngitilifor poverty reduction.

Insecure Tenure Discourages Regeneration. Insecurity of tenure can
restrain the willingness of both communities and individuals to undertake
ngitili restoration and to sustainably manage these enclosures.
Clearly acknowledging in national law the secure tenure of both private
and communal ngitiliwill help insure the future of the HASHI success.

In addition, there are no constraints on landowners wishing
to sell their individually owned ngitili, although, because of the
village land title system, it is very difficult to sell private land to
someone from outside your community. New owners are free to
fell the trees and develop the land as they see fit.

The somewhat ambiguous tenure situation of ngitili is also
a significant concern. Despite popular enthusiasm, the establishment
of new ngitili is often limited by tenure insecurity—or the perception of insecurity. Although ngitili are formally recorded
and registered by village governments, their tenure status
remains unclear under Tanzanian law. Villages commonly hold
a village title deed to all the land within village borders, while
households receive a subsidiary title to their privately owned
farmland with the village assembly’s approval. The remaining
land is designated as communal village land, under the management
of the village government (Barrow 2005c, d).

These communal lands can be used for communal ngitili,
but it is not always clear what basis the designation of a village
ngitili has in law, and therefore what property rights pertain.
For example, village governments and assemblies are
sometimes wary of officially designating ngitili as “protected
areas,” because they fear the state may appropriate these lands
and manage them as public lands at the district or national
levels (Barrow 2005d).

Tenure issues can interfere with establishing ngitili on
private land as well. Private landowners who don’t have secure
rights to their land are sometimes reluctant to establish or
expand ngitili for fear of triggering disputes within the community.
In some cases, concerted efforts by villagers and local
government institutions have overcome tenure problems, with
boundary surveys made in order to obtain legally watertight
communal and individual land title deeds (Kaale et al.
2003:16). Nevertheless, as pressure on land grows due to rising
human and livestock populations, land tenure disputes,
trespassing on ngitili, and conflicts over grazing rights are all
likely to increase.

Designating in law the specific ownership and use-rights
that pertain to communal ngitili within the overall system of
village-owned land could help address the tenure problem,
according to Edmund Barrow. Formally recognizing individual
and family-owned ngitili under Tanzanian law as a separate
land management category would also help. Closing these
loopholes would help ensure that ngitili continue to play a
significant and expanding role in villagers’ livelihood strategies
and income (Barrow 2005c).

Despite these challenges, the multiple benefits of forest
restoration are increasingly recognized by Tanzania’s government.
Since the HASHI project began, new legislation—
including the National Land Policy of 1997, the Land Act of 1999,
and Village Act of 1999—has supported the formal establishment
of ngitili and has begun to address the thorny issue of
land tenure (Kaale et al. 2003:16). In 1998 Tanzania revised its
forest policy, which now emphasizes participatory management
of and decentralized control over woodlands, and strongly
supportsngitili.

Enriching the Benefits Stream

According to Professor Monela’s task force, the Tanzanian
government can take several additional steps to improve the
economic benefits from ngitili and thus their anti-poverty impact
(Monela et al. 2004:10). These include:

Support Better Ngitili Management
The state can provide technical help and targeted research
specifically aimed at raising ngitili productivity. For example, it
could help improve fodder productivity by introducing more
nutritive and productive tree, shrub, and grass species. And it can
research the best methods and timing of cutting and pruning
ngitili trees to maximize production.

Monitor Ngitili Trends and Facilitate Lesson-Sharing
The state is in a unique position to offer certain kinds of support
that require a national rather than local perspective. For
example, using satellite imagery the state could track nationwide
changes in land use and biodiversity related to ngitili restoration
to help HASHI officials understand the macroscale impact of
their activities and better target their aid. The state can also
mount a national effort to document ngitili-related benefits and
innovations, helping communities to share their successes and
learn from others through public education campaigns and
knowledge networks.

Expand Markets for Ngitili Products Increasing the income stream from ngitilis will help sustain
Shinyanga’s land-use renaissance by making ngitilis even more
essential to local livelihoods. One of the most effective ways to
do this is to expand the markets for ngitili products. The state
can help by supporting small-scale processing plants to diversify
and add value to ngitili products (by making timber into furniture,
for example); by removing burdensome regulations and
other barriers to ngitili expansion and the establishment of local
enterprises based on ngitili products; and by helping households
access local and regional markets for their ngitili products by
providing relevant and timely market information.

How Tanzania’s government responds to these and other
challenges facing the ngitili restoration movement, remains to
be seen. What is not in dispute is a strong national commitment
to consolidate the successes of ngitili restoration and the
benefits it has brought in Shinyanga, and to replicate these,
wherever possible, across Tanzania’s drylands

This case study was authored by Polly Ghazi, with the collaboration and
guidance of Edmund Barrow, Prof. Gerald Monela, and Wendelen Mlenge.
Polly Ghazi is a freelance journalist based in London. Edmund Barrow is
the coordinator of Forest and Dryland Conservation and Social Policy at the
Eastern Africa regional office of The World Conservation Union (IUCN) in
Nairobi, Kenya. Prof. Monela is in the Department of Forest Economics at
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. Wendelen Mlenge is
the manager of the Natural Forest Resources and Agroforestry Center,
Shinyanga, Tanzania.